Appeal 3321676
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
5 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a small area of grassed amenity land to the front of the host property, which is a two-storey detached house with off-street parking. The local neighbourhood is predominantly residential in nature.
Standing on [address] at the junction with [name], the current view is one of trees and hedgerows bordering the narrow cul-de-sac roadway. The built form of the houses at 11 and [site address] is glimpsed as a backdrop through the vegetation, which gives a pleasant and spacious feel to the locale.
The positioning of the new detached garage would be highly prominent within the context of the streetscene, and the unattractive blank rear and side walls of the scheme would be clearly evident from the public domain. This would appear discordant and erode the character of the area, primarily due to the height and proximity of the building to the highway, and would have a dominant effect over the access road that lies on lower ground.
I appreciate that there are other instances of detached garages to the front of dwellings in the vicinity, nevertheless those identified by the appellant are not as imposing as that proposed in this case. In any event, development at other sites would be neutral considerations in any balance against planning harm, and I am mindful that each case must be assessed on its own merits. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________
I note that no objections are raised by the Council with regard to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties and highway safety, and bat and swift bricks would be provided. However, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. I am also aware that the development could be screened with hedging, still any such planting would need to be of a height, extent and density that of itself would look unusual or out of place in this village situation.
I conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would contravene Policies DM1 and DM9 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017and the Council's Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2009, which together seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.
Section 05
Conclusion
In respect of all matters raised and based on my reasoning above, the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 September 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3321676
- Application reference
- 22/505909/FULL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Maidstone Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000110
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Unknown
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 30 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 5 May 2023
- Valid date
- 5 May 2023
- Start date
- 27 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 4 October 2023
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 39728
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21